> “If a company is dominant, that’s fine,” Ms. Vestager told reporters. “But if that dominance is abused, then we have an issue.”
Having a monopoly and not abusing it is impossible when you're dealing with humans. Maybe in a hundred years where business decisions run through a DLNN and are cross-referenced with the law to make sure they're in compliance, a monopoly that doesn't abuse its dominance will become a reality.
As I inferred with sarcasm, this divergence from vertical to horizontal growth could effectively lead to oligopolies in the major markets(the few where they don't exist).
I believe in the competitive market model up until economies of scale and purpose driven occupation out weigh it's benefits. e.g. manufacturing jet engines requires huge amounts of equity and legacy knowledge for safety. e.g. automating warehousing may lead to more fulfilling or mentally stimulating occupations.
Amazon as a force in the larger economy versus a subset of markets in the economy could spur innovation in stagnant markets. On the other side of the coin, leveraging their massive infrastructure gives them an unfair advantage as they enter new sectors which can lead to an increased market barrier and prevent firms with new ideas from competing.
As they stand, they aren't that much bigger than normal conglomerates[1]. But, they have strategically placed themselves in critical service areas like cloud computing. I think if they can force markets to evolve then we should allow them to grow with a discerning eye.
